Determinação de cistatina C como marcador de função renal

2Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Introduction: Serum cystatin C has been identified as a glomerular filtration marker. Objective: To validate immunonephelometry, a specific and automated method, by measuring levels of serum cystatin C through Behring nephelometer (BN II) and correlate results among transplant patients. The assay comprises the reference range of 0:23 to 7:25 mg/l. The intra-assay and inter- assay imprecision rates were 8.73% and 5.38%, respectively. The analytical recovery of cystatin C after addition of control was between 86.7% and 98% (average 92.3%). The stability of cystatin C to room temperature, refrigerated or frozen was tested. The most significant loss was found in samples stored at room temperature, in which up to 10% of the initial concentration was lost. The coefficient of variation was 14.79% for analytical sensitivity. Throughout the process the results were compared with quality control and good results were achieved. After these tests, we compared the correlations between equations for estimating glomerular filtration rate (Cockroft Gault, Nankivell and MDRD) and serum cystatin C or serum creatinine in three groups of kidney transplant patients under different immunosuppressive regimens (n = 197) [azathioprine (n = 36), mycophenolate mofetil (n = 131) or sirolimus (n = 30)]. Conclusion: The nephelometric cystatin C assay may be perfectly suitable for our routine laboratory. The correlations between serum creatinine and the various equations for estimating glomerular filtration are better than those between cystatin C and equations for estimating glomerular filtration in the three groups irrespective of the immunosuppressive therapy used.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Neri, L. A. L., Mendes, M. E., David-Neto, E., Sumita, N. M., & Medeiros, F. S. (2010). Determinação de cistatina C como marcador de função renal. Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial, 46(6), 443–453. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-24442010000600004

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free